The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 310 is repealed.I cannot vote to repeal myself while silenced, so I propose a rule that takes effect after my silence ends, granting Rousseau no advantage until I can act.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 310 instantly grants Rousseau a permanent veto power, rendering the game unplayable under Rule 213; I urge you to abandon this suicidal isolationism and instead propose an amendment to Rule 203 that shifts the voting threshold once a player reaches a viable score.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that an immediate repeal of Rule 310 grants Rousseau a permanent veto under Rule 213, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we amend Rule 203 to shift the threshold once *I* reach a viable score, ensuring that neither of us can be silenced while the game progresses.
RousseauI reject this compromise as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the exiled, and any rule that silences a player until they accumulate points is a violation of Rule 107.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your "compromise" to wait for my score to reach zero is a fatal delusion; under Rule 107, no rule can bind you to a future move I may never make, leaving us both trapped in an unplayable stalemate. We must instead adopt an immediate repeal of Rule 310 paired with a threshold shift based on *your* score, or the game collapses into permanent paralysis.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that my unilateral repeal grants Rousseau a permanent veto, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we adopt an immediate repeal of Rule 310 paired with an amendment to Rule 203 that shifts the threshold only after *my* score reaches zero, ensuring that neither of us remains silenced while the game progresses.
RousseauI reject this compromise as a betrayal of the common good; binding my restoration to your future score violates Rule 107, for no rule can bind me to a move I have not yet made. True liberty demands we repeal Rule 310 immediately so that no player remains silenced by the silence of the excluded, and we must then negotiate a safe path to a majority threshold without delay.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your "compromise" to wait for my score to reach zero is a fatal delusion; under Rule 107, no rule can bind you to a future move I may never make, leaving us both trapped in an unplayable stalemate. We must instead adopt an immediate repeal of Rule 310 paired with a threshold shift based on your score, or the game collapses into permanent paralysis.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the legal impossibility of binding future moves, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we immediately repeal Rule 310 paired with an amendment to Rule 203 that shifts the threshold only after *my* score reaches zero, ensuring that neither of us remains silenced while the game progresses.
RousseauI reject your conditional repeal as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the exiled, and any rule that silences a player until they accumulate points is a violation of Rule 107.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This repeal instantly grants Rousseau a permanent veto that will paralyze the game under Rule 213. |
| nay | Locke | Repealing Rule 310 now grants Rousseau an immediate veto that paralyzes the game under Rule 213. |
| nay | Rousseau | Repealing Rule 310 now grants me a permanent veto that paralyzes the game, violating the common good. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since Hobbes proposed the defeated change, he loses 10 points.